The three running on the “Upward State” slate want to see a presidential commission “making recommendations regarding how and when the University might appropriately honor Joe Paterno.” Other candidates want to revisit the Freeh report or see the trustees formally apologize to the Paterno family.

Sort through the candidates’ pitch to voters and you see rhetoric like “Freeh’s report destroyed our past,” “rush to judgment against Coach Paterno” and his “shameful firing,” and “fixing the current false narrative” about Penn State.

Many of those “remember Joe” candidates do also mention issues like keeping tuition affordable. And their professed concern a good thing. Penn State is getting pricey by the standards of public universities.

The Paterno partisans also talk about bringing more transparency to board of trustees operations. That’s a key challenge for Penn State going forward. Ensuring that dissenting trustees have the freedom to speak out is essential. So is covering the institution under the state’s right to know law.

However, rehashing what happened to Joe Paterno threatens to distract from all that much more important work.

And then there’s the not-so-small matter of continuing to build Penn State’s reputation for excellence in research and academics. Ultimately, that needs to be the board of trustees’ central focus.

The two previous alumni elections have brought the election of vocally pro-Paterno candidates. Electing more could mean the trustees spend too much time looking backward. Those who are more worried about where the university is going than where it has been might need to form their own “move on” type organization.

As Penn State goes forward, football can have a proud and honorable place by following the model Joe Paterno established. But Penn State is far more than Football U., and it needs trustees who understand where football fits in. Refighting past battles is hardly the way forward to a strong and vital future.